| From: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: generate_iterator functions |
| Date: | 2007-10-18 19:13:28 |
| Message-ID: | b42b73150710181213l44bbff40u74313aef69758970@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/18/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I don't much like either of those, because they seem misleading:
> what I'd expect from a function named that way is that it returns
> the *elements* of the array, not their subscripts.
>
> Come to think of it, do we have a way of doing that directly? If you
> only care about accessing the array elements, it seems like dealing in
> the subscripts is just notational tedium. Perhaps there should be
> array_expand(anyarray) returns setof anyelement, in addition to the
> subscript generation function.
>
> On the question of being too long, I could live with
> generate_subscripts().
how about array_iota?
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-18 19:20:02 | Re: Proposal: generate_iterator functions |
| Previous Message | Boergesson, Cheryl | 2007-10-18 19:09:24 | Re: upgrade from 8.0.3 to 8.1.10 crash |